Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
01/28/2021 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB39 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 39: Ballot Custody/Tampering; Voter Reg; Mail
3:33:24 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 39
"An Act relating to elections; relating to voter registration;
relating to ballots and a system of tracking and accounting for
ballots; establishing an election offense hotline; designating
as a class A misdemeanor the collection of ballots from other
voters; designating as a class C felony the intentional opening
or tampering with a sealed ballot, certificate, or package of
ballots without authorization from the director of the division
of elections; and providing for an effective date."
3:33:46 PM
CHAIR SHOWER read the sponsor statement for SB 39 [Original
punctuation provided.]:
Election integrity matters. Every vote counts.
Election integrity is a concern for many that has
influenced Alaskan elections for too long. Chain of
Custody is the foundation of ballot integrity. SB39
was written to allow a comprehensive look at every
chain of custody issue in Alaska. The focus of the
bill, which I first filed in 2019, is to insure ballot
chain of custody and election integrity. Once you lose
chain of custody, you lose ballot integrity. I
support mail-in voting and utilized it throughout my
24-year military career.
Elections should not be called into question because
of ambiguous election protocol policy. SB 39 codifies
strict chain of custody protocols into the handling of
ballots and election reports. It mandates that all
ballots be in a strict chain of custody all the way
back to a central location where they can be destroyed
after all ballots have been accounted for by the
Elections Board. Current practice allows ballots to
be destroyed in precinct without central accounting.
SB 39 requires the director to establish in
regulation, best practices for chain of custody
protocols, and provides affected parties reasonable
notice for ballot handling observation opportunities.
It establishes an election offence hotline number that
is conspicuously posted at polling areas and on the
election privacy envelopes. Every voter becomes
empowered, if they see something, they can now
effectively report irregularities or concerns. It
requires election workers to immediately notify the
Director of any irregularities, then allows for an
audit of ballots in precinct, immediately after the
election;
There are no better checks and balances than
empowering voters themselves at the most local level
possible to become informal election observers.
3:35:43 PM
CHAIR SHOWER stated his intention "to listen to all sides and
make voting, including mail-in voting, more secure so Alaskans
can be confident in their election system."
3:37:00 PM
SCOTT OGAN, Staff, Senator Mike Shower, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, paraphrased the following sectional
analysis for SB 39:
Section 1, Amends AS 15.07.050(a), eliminating automatic
PFD applicant voter registration and providing for PFD
applicant voter registration by checking a box to request
registration.
Section 2, Amends 15.07.060(e) to provide for PFD
applicant voter registration but only if the applicant
requests to register.
Section 3. Amends AS 15.07.070(i) so the division only
registers PFD applicants who request to register,
Section 4. Amends AS 15.07.070(k) to require the director
to register and notify only those PFD applicants who
requested to register to vote.
Section 5, Amends 15.07.070(l), requiring a PFD applicant
request to be registered before their name is placed on
the master register.
Section 6. Mandates a ballot security and chain of
custody protocol to track ballots, absentee ballot
certificates and envelopes, and paper records of
electronically generated ballots. Establishes a toll-free
election offense hotline and requires the number be
placed on voting machines and election materials.
Section 7, Requires the director to provide election
board notices with the election offense hotline. Two
notices must be posted in each polling place in a
conspicuous location.
Section 8. Amends AS 15.15.250, requiring that
spoiled ballots be marked and sealed rather than
destroyed.
Section 9. Requires that the director provide a
voter notice if the voter's ballot was not counted
because the voter was not a resident of the state or
house district in which the voter sought to vote.
Section 10. Provides that elections may not be
certified by the director or lieutenant governor
until each original ballot and record is accounted
for.
Section 11. Amends AS 15.15.470, requiring that all
ballots and stubs for elections be retained for 22
months. Mandates ballot, certificate, and envelope
destruction at a single location, witnessed by the
director or their designee, and then director
certification of destruction.
Section 12. Amends AS 15.20.066(a) to prohibit
absentee voting by facsimile in state elections.
3:40:16 PM
Section 13. Amends AS 15.20.081(a) to provide for
email absentee ballot transmission.
Section 14. Amends AS 15.20.08l(d) and requires the
division, in the event a court invalidates the
absentee ballot witness signature during an
emergency declared under AS 26.23, to enforce the
witness signature after the emergency declaration
expires.
Section 15. Amends AS 15.20.08l(e) to require that
all absentee ballots received after election day be
postmarked on or before election day.
Section 16. Amends AS 15.20.20l(b), requiring that
reviewed absentee ballots be counted as soon as
possible after review and prohibiting counting delay
to determine whether a voter voted more than once in
the election.
Section 17. Amends AS 15.20.220(a) and adds a name
comparison to the review of the district counting
board certified absentee and questioned ballot
votes.
Section 18. Amends AS 15.56.035(a), criminalizing
knowing ballot collection unless the person is
collecting a single ballot and is a family member,
household member, caregiver of the voter, or the
person is engaged in official duties as an election
official, postal worker, commercial delivery
service.
3:42:20 PM
Section 19. Defines caregiver, collects, family
member, and household member in AS 15.56.035.
Section 20. Criminalizes intentional unauthorized
opening or tampering with a sealed absentee ballot
certificate or package of ballots.
Section 21. Requires the lieutenant governor to
notify the legislature of a security breach
affecting a voter registration record or a voting
machine.
Section 22. Prohibits a general law municipality
(but not a home rule municipality) from mailing a
general law or special election ballot to a voter
who has not affirmatively requested to vote by mail.
Section 23. Amends 43.23.0lS(b) to allow a PFD
applicant to request to be registered as a voter.
Section 24. Amends AS 43.23.101 so that the
Commissioner of Revenue is obligated to send PFD
applicant information to the Division of Elections
only when the applicant requests to be registered to
vote.
Section 25. Repeals provisions authorizing the
Director of the Division of Elections to conduct
elections held at a time other than the general,
party primary, or municipal election by mail.
Section 26. Provides that changes made to PFD
applications and voter registration apply to
applications filed on or after the effective date of
the Act.
3:44:02 PM
Section 27. Provides that the offenses enacted by
the bill apply to offenses occurring on or after the
effective date of the Act.
Section 28. Transition provision authorizing the
Department of Revenue and the Division of Elections
to adopt regulations to implement the Act.
Section 29. Establishes an immediate effective date
for sec. 28.
Section 30. Establishes a January 1, 2022 effective
date for the bill except as provided in sec. 29.
3:44:38 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if there were technical questions about any
of the sections.
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to Section 21 relating to notification
in the event of a security breach of a voter registration record
or voting machine. She suggested there should be a specific
timeframe in which the lieutenant governor must notify the
legislature of such a breach.
CHAIR SHOWER replied his office would look at whether to add a
more specific timeframe.
3:46:12 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI highlighted Sections 2, 12, and 13 relating to
facsimile ballots. He asked how many facsimile ballots the
Division of Elections currently receives and where they come
from.
MR. OGAN answered he did not have that information but he would
follow up with the data once he received it.
SENATOR KAWASAKI offered his understanding that ballots coming
from overseas, particularly from members of the military, arrive
by facsimile. He recalled that the Division of Elections
confirmed 131 facsimile ballots in the last election. "I'm
really concerned with the military overseas that do use FAX
machines," he said.
CHAIR SHOWER replied he would take that into consideration and
he would also investigate the reason that a Democrat in the
House requested the provision.
3:47:53 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO referenced Section 17 and asked if the phrase
"comparing the names" means a signature comparison or record of
a person's name.
MR. OGAN replied the new phrase is to ensure that the names in
absentee and questioned ballots are reconciled. He said much of
this currently is done by policy and putting it in statute
addresses the concern that policy can change with different
administrations.
CHAIR SHOWER restated that because policy can change, the
legislature should define what it wants in statute.
He asked Mr. Shanigan talk about some of the policy, protocol,
and precedent that led to the bill.
3:49:24 PM
TERRENCE SHANIGAN, Staff, Senator Mike Shower, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said he would begin with some
background information. He explained that the precursor to SB 39
was Senate Bill 116 that was filed in 2019. It focused on
policy, protocol, and precedent, recognizing that ambiguous
statutes had created loose policy and had taken precedent over
qualitative protocol. He said policy drives a lot of the
decisions and practices within the Division of Elections and
policy changes from one administration to the next can lead to
protocol changes such as determining which votes count and which
do not count. For that reason, the legislature should make that
decision and place it in statute.
3:52:09 PM
MR. SHANIGAN reported that Senate Bill 116 stemmed from some
significant Alaska lawsuits. In 2018, the sponsor and his staff
discussed what happened in the District 40 race between Senator
Lisa Murkowski and challenger Joe Miller [Miller v. Treadwell],
the District 40 race between Ben Nageak and Dean Westlake
[Nageak v. Mallott], and ballot issues that came up in Anchorage
during recounting in the Walker and Parnell race.
He said those cases revealed that ballots could be destroyed at
the precinct level; the chain of custody could be broken; and
that not all ballots came back to a single repository. The
sponsor's office also learned that federal election laws require
the retention of all ballots and materials, which they thought
was a good practice. He noted that those early conversations did
not include the small percentage of ballots cast using mail-in
voting.
MR. SHANIGAN related that when Senate Bill 116 did not pass, the
concern was that the general level of error in mail-in voting
would be magnified when many more voters used that method
because of Covid-19 concerns. He posited that, "When you put a
ten times multiplier on that and go from 20,000 votes to 200,000
votes, you start to swing elections in ways that you never
intended."
MR. SHANIGAN stated that Section 25 in SB 39 specifically
addresses the issue of mail-in voting. He continued,
If we don't...clean up the ambiguous language and put
some codifying language in that protects the integrity
of the ballots and puts chain of custody situations -
protocols in place, if we don't do that, we need to
seriously consider looking at our mail-in voting
system and having the debate whether or not we can
afford to keep it because there are certain
situations.
3:56:13 PM
MR. SHANIGAN cited his experience working as a state trooper to
emphasize the importance of maintaining chain of custody to
ensure the evidence is not contaminated. He pointed to the O.J.
Simpson trial as an example. The chain of custody was broken and
the evidence became a cornerstone that eroded the case, he said.
3:56:32 PM
MR. SHANIGAN stated that when the sponsor looked at ballot
integrity, it was clear that chain of custody is very tight for
in-person voting. He outlined the process from the time the
ballot starts at the Division of Elections until the voted
ballot is counted and tabulated. He said that is a secure chain
of custody.
MR. SHANIGAN said a secure chain of custody does not exist for
mail-in voting in Alaska. The chain of custody is broken when
the ballot enters the U.S. Postal system because unidentified
postal workers touch the ballot for an unknown amount of time
until it reaches the voter's house. The voted ballot then goes
back into the U.S. Postal system until it is back at the
Division of Elections. He said that process is a problem in
itself, but it becomes more a problem when 113,000 records are
lost and the data potentially compromised, which happened during
the last election.
He said the situation is further complicated when citizens
receive more than one ballot, which also happened in the last
election. The sponsor's office talked to multiple people
throughout the state who received up to five ballots, which
shows that something is wrong with the state's voter data. He
said, "We do know that 113,000 records are compromised and if we
do nothing today, we have to still reinvent our system." An
additional concern is that ballots can be destroyed at the
precinct level, he said.
MR. SHANIGAN said it is a concern that municipalities are
allowing people to use mail-in voting. "The same person that
gets five ballots at the state-level election reported to us
that they received five ballots at the municipal election." He
said the Division of Elections maintains that its system is
clean, but the Municipality of Anchorage receives its data from
the state system. He said, "We need to figure out how to clean
that information up."
MR. SHANIGAN said auto voter enrollment tied to the dividend
application is another problem because people should not be
forced to register. Further, he said his office has evidence of
a foreign national who lived in Alaska for a year and applied
for a dividend. The dividend was denied because the person was
not eligible, but they were auto registered and they received a
ballot for the last election. He said this raises questions
about system integrity.
4:01:17 PM
MR. SHANIGAN said registering voters through the PFD application
is a good idea, but it should be one's choice. The current
process is that everyone who applies for a permanent fund
dividend (PFD) is automatically registered to vote and the
sponsor believes the applicant should check a box to become
registered. He said another problem with the current system,
which affects many rural Alaskans, is that the address for the
PFD may not be the person's voting address.
He shared that he was part of the Alaska Native think tank that
talked about the challenges of voting in rural Alaska and how
important mail-in and absentee voting can be. He said there can
be exceptions that don't hurt the whole system, but there must
be a system to authenticate voter information. The first step is
to clean up the existing statutes. "We've got a system where our
data is corrupted and it's exposed. And if we do nothing about
it, we're setting ourselves up for big failure."
MR. SHANIGAN emphasized that SB 39 was never about stopping
mail-in voting. And all the charges about it being a race issue
are dismissive of his family and people he knows who are
concerned about what goes on in his village. He concluded, "By
putting the conversation on the table - that if we do nothing we
should seriously consider the mail-in concerns."
4:05:13 PM
CHAIR SHOWER said he appreciated the background because there
have been misconceptions and his office has had to explain that
the bill does not do what people have said it does. He said he
believes in putting all options on the table for debate in this
statewide bill. It will sink or swim on its own. He said it is
fine that the bill changes through the amendment process. "We
have no ownership in that particular thing other than to make
this better."
CHAIR SHOWER said he would highlight several points for Mr.
Shanigan or Mr. Ogan to discuss. For example, in 2016 when
automatic voter registration became part of the PFD application,
one-third of the voters voted against it. He said a number of
people have contacted his office to say they do not want to be
forced into the voting system. That provision is in the bill to
have the debate and find a compromise, he said. "People can
still select that but if they don't want that, it's not forced
upon them."
4:06:40 PM
CHAIR SHOWER explained the no mail-in provision:
There is a section of this state, quite a big section
actually, that doesn't want mail-in at all. There are
sections of this state that want nothing but mail-in.
I think I would find, we would find a majority of
Alaskans probably don't mind where it is now as long
as it is secure. We are trying to identify those areas
where it is not secure, where we can make it better.
But I would imagine most Alaskans would like the
option to be able to vote in person. I would imagine a
lot of Alaskans still want the option to vote
absentee.
He listed some of the reasons Alaskans may need or want to vote
absentee, including being in the military. He shared that he has
used absentee voting many times and said there is no intent to
stop that.
CHAIR SHOWER said people from "multiple sides of the equation"
contacted his office and he believes everyone should have an
opportunity to discuss these issues and figure out the best path
forward. He listed some of the myths and falsehoods he has heard
about the bill. These include: it eliminates mail-in voting, it
eliminates local control by prohibiting mail-in voting at the
municipal level, it eliminates registration to vote through the
PFD application, it prevents people from registering to vote, it
eliminates the option to vote through absentee ballot, and it
limits rural participation in voting.
He clarified his intent in filing SB 39:
I want people to understand from an intent perspective
of filing this bill and what we put into it is to have
the discussion. We have no intent to do those things
and I hope people will see through this discussion and
debate process and what we're talking about today is
that that's not where we're going with this bill. It
was never the intention.
Even as you said that if we get to a point where we
find that we're unable to secure our voting system,
then maybe we need to have the discussion about mail-
in. How do we do it better if we can't?
CHAIR SHOWER said their investigative process has identified the
possibility for error, but there has been little discussion
about fraud. He asked Mr. Shanigan to comment on the difference
between fraud and error and how they affect the system overall.
4:09:31 PM
MR. SHANIGAN said he first wanted to point out that if the same
level of protocol integrity were used for in-person voting as is
currently found in vote by mail, precincts would be unmanned and
ballots would be left on a table with a sign asking people to
vote just one ballot. Then the voted ballots would remain in the
precinct until they were collected some eight hours later.
Regarding fraud versus error, he explained that the
investigative process focused almost exclusively on error. For
example, an evaluation of the Walker versus Parnell race found a
very high error rate in voters having accurate knowledge of the
district in which they were registered. People who went to the
wrong precinct voted question ballots and their district votes
did not count. He said the sponsor believes that the Division of
Elections should notify voters when their district changes and
when their vote did not count. But notification as a matter of
policy is not sufficient, because it could change from one
administration to the next.
MR. SHANIGAN also pointed out that it is not clear whether or
not precinct workers can tell if a voter who comes to the
precinct has already voted absentee. Further, if both an in-
person and absentee ballot are voted by the same person, it may
or may not be caught. But if the voter votes a question ballot,
"it neutralizes both out," he said. He said that who decides
which ballot counts depends on the policy of that
administration. "As Alaskans we should be concerned about
administrations choosing whose vote they're going to count and
whose they're not," he said.
MR. SHANIGAN stated that it is the legislature's responsibility
to propose statutory changes to clean up elections and the
sponsor is taking an aggressive stance to do so. Authenticating
the voter rolls will eliminate the questions about whether there
should or should not be mail-in voting. He highlighted that
fraud represents a very small sliver of the problems with the
election system. The problem is that the system is error-ridden
because of loose statutes and ambiguous policy upon which
protocols are based. He said we need a task force that involves
citizens and local solutions.
4:15:33 PM
MR. SHANIGAN explained that Section 22 intends to push elections
to the local level. He said municipalities like Anchorage or
Juneau that have their own election ordinances "are exempt from
a lot of this." Aspiring communities that want to opt out of the
state election system are able to do that. "We were trying to be
clear that if you're already doing something or want to do
something, this system's for you. And all the others, it applies
to you."
CHAIR SHOWER asked him to talk about the protocols a
municipality would need to follow to ensure election integrity
but not prevent it from having its own mail-in voting.
4:18:29 PM
MR. SHANIGAN explained that communities would be able to
establish protocols for their election system but they must meet
the state baseline standards for election integrity.
CHAIR SHOWER asked, as an Alaska Native and veteran, if he views
any of the solutions embodied in SB 39 as voter suppression.
MR. SHANIGAN answered no; if SB 39 were to pass tomorrow, there
would still be exceptions to accommodate absentee voting. "If
you could vote in person before, you can vote in person now; if
you had to have an absentee situation before, you'd have the
absentee situation now."
MR. OGAN added offered his view that an election system that is
rife with errors and possible fraud is a form of voter
suppression.
4:24:08 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if this was about internal policy or
regulations established by the Division of Elections.
MR. SHANIGAN replied the point is that policies are not
codified. The policy may be good but it may not be evenly
applied or it may be ambiguous and that potentially leads to
errors. He cited the example of destroying ballots at the
precinct level and deciding which ballots to count. He said
those are policy decisions that can change depending on the
administration. That breeds mistrust.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he would like a deeper analysis of the
regulations to understand whether the bill does or does not
change existing regulations.
4:26:16 PM
MR. OGAN cited the example of the Division of Elections giving
contradictory statements from one conversation to the next. Last
year the division said that when somebody votes twice their vote
is canceled, but this year they said the last vote counts. He
also related his experience working in the administration for 10
years when people in the agency opted not to follow regulations
and statutes. He said, "Just because it's in the statutes or
regulation doesn't mean that the bureaucrats are going to follow
it. What it does is it gives you a process that you can
hopefully take to an objective court and alter their behavior."
4:27:55 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked for an example of what has changed
between the Parnell, Walker, and Dunleavy administrations.
MR. SHANIGAN replied the sponsor's office has requested, but has
not received, that information. They did receive confirmation
that what vote counts has changed from administration to
administration.
CHAIR SHOWER added that the answers have been difficult to come
by, partly because of the data breach and pending lawsuits. He
shared that a Democrat's office and a poll director also
mentioned seeing irregularities in the last election.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked to have the lieutenant governor and the
director of the Division of Elections come before the committee
to testify to the election integrity issues.
CHAIR SHOWER said he was told that neither the governor nor the
lieutenant governor would come before the legislature.
MR. OGAN emphasized the need for clear policy, protocols,
regulations, and statutes.
4:33:03 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD voiced support for having the lieutenant
governor come before the committee and suggested the committee
also hold a hearing on the Dominion voting system.
CHAIR SHOWER urged the members to submit requests to hear from
specific individuals or entities.
He emphasized that election integrity is not partisan. He said
the intent in SB 39 is to restore confidence in Alaska's
election system.
4:35:59 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO thanked him for shining a light on election
integrity. She requested the sponsor expand the sectional
analysis to include:
1) the problem being solved in each section,
2) whether it a problem that might happen or has happened, and
3) a specific example if the problem has happened.
For example, constituents have said they were surprised to learn
that they could no longer vote where they live because they
applied for a PFD where they work, perhaps on the North Slope.
CHAIR SHOWER agreed to provide an expanded sectional.
4:38:15 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND echoed Senator Kawasaki's request to hear from
the Division of Elections. He also asked if the intention in
Section 18 is to limit somebody from collecting a ballot from
more than one family member.
CHAIR SHOWER replied the intent is to prevent ballot harvesting,
but there would be exemptions to accommodate voters who cannot
visit their polling station in person. He asked Mr. Ogan to
supplement the explanation of Section 18 for Senator Holland.
4:39:48 PM
MR. OGAN said the intent in Section 18 is to stop professional
ballot harvesting that went on in the last election, and
probably before that. He cited examples of people receiving
multiple ballots for the same election and people knocking on
doors to collect ballots. He acknowledged that exceptions might
be necessary to accommodate those unable to go to the polls in
person.
MR. SHANIGAN pointed out that pre-stamped envelopes add more
ambiguity to a mail-in system because the envelopes are not
dated. He related his experience working for the Knowles
campaign when 250 people were hired to go door to door to pick
up ballots.
CHAIR SHOWER said it is unfortunate that the data breach was not
reported earlier because people would have been more on guard
and perhaps kept or taken pictures of the extra ballots they
received. That did not happen. Nevertheless, it is clear there
is room to improve the system, he said.
4:44:55 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI said there have been assertions of fraud and
statements that something could have happened with ballots, but
no proof has been presented. He said he hopes the person who
said they received five ballots comes in and signs an affidavit
attesting to that fact. He noted that people who contacted his
office with ballot questions declined to follow through to help
start an investigation. He opined that the lieutenant governor
did a good job with the Ballot Measure 2 recount and lauded the
work of election workers from both sides of the aisle in
Fairbanks. He reiterated the need for proof that there really is
a problem.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he would like to hear from the foreign
national who received a ballot because that person did something
illegal if they voted the ballot. To the person who was
surprised that their voting station had changed after they
applied for a PFD, he pointed out that they attested to their
mailing address and where they are domiciled on the dividend
application. The Division of Election uses that address.
4:47:45 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked to hear:
1) about the errors in the last election and whether they were
material,
2) how chain of custody would work, and
3) about the destruction of ballots at the precinct level.
He described the process when his mother made a mistake on her
ballot. The ballot was torn in half, put in an envelope that was
sealed and certified, and sent to the Division of Elections. The
ballots in each precinct are sequenced and each one is accounted
for. He said he believes that process is in regulation but he
would like to know for sure.
4:49:27 PM
MR. SHANIGAN said that regarding destruction of ballots, it
might be necessary to get testimony from people who testified in
the Miller v. Treadwell and Nageak v. Mallott cases. He noted
that the sponsor's office has had conversations with the
Division of Elections regarding ballot destruction in rural
areas. He said the bill is targeting errors, not fraud. He said
he is not questioning the integrity of election workers. The
errors are most likely due to lack of training and flawed
processes.
CHAIR SHOWER asked him to discuss signature verification in
Anchorage versus the state.
MR. SHANIGAN said the Division of Elections said it can only
validate signatures manually, but the Municipality of Anchorage
has a software program they use for their elections and they
also contract with the City and Borough of Juneau to validate
signatures in those elections.
MR. SHANIGAN said, with regard to the lack of evidence, the
113,000 records that were lost in the data breach is evidence.
He added that "hundreds of people" from multiple districts
contacted the sponsor's office about getting more than one
ballot and some have said they are willing to sign affidavits
and testify. He said there is a lot of circumstantial evidence
that raises question about the integrity of the last election.
4:55:38 PM
CHAIR SHOWER said every person his office talked to said they
would be willing to testify or talk to a law enforcement
officer. It is unfortunate that this administration did not
inform people of the data breach, he said, because they would
have been more vigilant if they had that information.
4:57:08 PM
MR. OGAN pointed out that the legislature's ethics statute
requires people to avoid even the appearance of unethical
behavior. He emphasized the need to establish robust chain of
custody protocols and suggested that Alaska has the opportunity
to create a system that is "a shining light on the hill" for all
states to admire. He said both sides of the aisle could agree on
such a system.
4:58:58 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD requested:
1) the Division of Elections talk about the difference between
using a black marker or ink pen to mark a ballot,
2) the courts talk about Judge Crosby's decision to strike the
witness signature requirement on absentee ballots and the
potential for the court to show political bias, and
3) if the federal government should be involved in the inquiry
about the last election.
5:01:11 PM
CHAIR SHOWER thanked the committee and held SB 39 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| State Affairs Weekly Announcement Template.pdf |
SSTA 1/28/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 39 SB 39 Agenda |
| 1 28 21 SB 39 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 1/28/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 39 |
| 1 28 28 SB 39 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SSTA 1/28/2021 3:30:00 PM |
|
| Fiscal Note 21.pdf |
SSTA 1/28/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 39 |
| Fiscal Note 981.pdf |
SSTA 1/28/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 39 |
| Fiscal Note 2202.pdf |
SSTA 1/28/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 39 |
| Fiscal Note 21.pdf |
SSTA 1/28/2021 3:30:00 PM |
|
| Sectional Analysis SB39 (Legal).pdf |
SSTA 1/28/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 39 |